Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

Clearwater National Forest DEIS

I received my notice for comment on the Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning DEIS and since I have never ridden the area could someone post the information I should include in my comments so I don't appear to be a seminar commentor. If you could please include relative area names and requested actions or inaction for those areas. Thanks in Advance Swampy:beer;
 
they want to close the idaho side of surveryor riding area. Some people call it fish creek. the montana side has been closed for awhile, it looks like now the idaho side will be closed.

Dear Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Participant:

Thank you for your earlier comments on and interest in the Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning effort. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Travel Plan is now available on the Forest website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/clearwater/. The Forest Supervisor has identified Alternative C as the Preferred Alternative and a short summary of the DEIS is attached to this email.

The Clearwater National Forest is making every effort to minimize our use of paper, as well as the consumption of other resources that are needed to produce, transport, and store paper documents. Your willingness to access environmental documents online is greatly appreciated, and will allow us to significantly reduce costs. Copies of the DEIS are also available at Clearwater National Forest offices and many local libraries, including those at Orofino, Deary, Elk River, Grangeville, Kamiah, Kooskia, Lewiston, Moscow, Pierce, Potlatch, and Weippe in Idaho, as well as Superior and Missoula, Montana.

How to Comment

Written, facsimile, hand-delivered, ****, and electronic comments concerning this project will be accepted for 45 calendar days following the printing of the legal notice in the Lewiston Morning Tribune. The publication date in the newspaper of record (July 17, 2009) is the exclusive means for calculating the comment period for this project. Those wishing to comment should not rely on dates or timeframe information provided by any other source.

Written comments should be submitted to the project Team Leader at the following address:

Kamiah Ranger Station
Attn: Lois Foster, Travel Planning IDT Leader
903 Third Street
Kamiah, ID 83536

Electronic comments must be submitted in a format such as an email message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Microsoft Word (.doc) document to:

comments-northern-clearwater@fs.fed.us

Email comments must include the commenter’s name, and the words “Travel Planning” should appear in the subject line of the message.

It is important that any comments you provide are substantive and specific; some suggestions for making effective comments are on the Travel Plan section of the website on the "Effects and Comments" page.

Appeal Eligibility

If you wish to comment, it is your responsibility to submit them by the close of the comment period. Those who provide comments during the comment period are eligible to appeal a decision on this project under 36 CFR 215.13, as published in the Federal Register regulations. If you have further concerns, please contact the Team Leader, Lois Foster, at 208-935-4258.


We appreciate your time and interest in the management of your National Forest.




>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Lois Foster
IDT Leader/NEPA Coordinator
Clearwater National Forest
Kamiah Ranger Station
208-935-4258
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
 
yeah I got an email too. So I take it Alternaitve C is not what we wanted?

Only if you want to loose 200,000 acres of the best riding in the world.

Here's a quote I picked up from some people in the know.
Trail bike riders and snowmobilers have the most to lose in this plan. Snowmobilers lose access to the Great Burn and Mallard Larkins under the preferred alternative C. The preferred alternative also kicks mountain bikes (and motorized use) out of these areas. Motorcyclists would lose 200 miles of trail (40%) over the existing condition.
 
I got to ride there once last season and your right it is some great riding....of course they want to shut us out.
Even if it goes through it won't be my last time riding in there.
 
I got one too. I wrote Sandra Mitchell (ISSA Public Lands Director) and asked her to dumb it down for me because they make it so complicated and I want to at least appear intelligent when I make my comments and go to meetings.

It affects a lot of the areas we ride.
 
I got one too. I wrote Sandra Mitchell (ISSA Public Lands Director) and asked her to dumb it down for me because they make it so complicated and I want to at least appear intelligent when I make my comments and go to meetings.

It affects a lot of the areas we ride.

Sandra, just got hit with the news today, like the rest of us.

A isn't an option their careers will allow, at the forest service.


Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, represents the existing situation, and is required by law. It does not meet the purpose and need for travel planning.

There are also three “action” alternatives.

Alternative B, Minimal Travel Management Rule Implementation, responds to commenters who said the Forest should do only what is needed to implement the national Travel Management Rule. It affords the most motorized access, and more motorized opportunities than were included in the proposed action.
note: this option should not result in any net loss or gain of snowmobiling acres

Alternative C, Motorcycle Loop Trails and Wildlife Habitat, responds to public
comments about providing motorized single-track and loop trail opportunities while moving wildlife and recommended wilderness conditions toward those described in the Forest Plan. It was identified as the “preferred alternative.”
note: loss 200,000 acres.

Alternative D, Wildlife and Recommended Wilderness Emphasis responds to
public comments about protecting wildlife habitat and the character of recommended wilderness areas. It would result in less motorized access than the other two action alternatives and the proposed action.
note: loss 200,000 acres.

Also, some over snow prohibitions will be in effect from 10/1-11/15. Fall closures to snowmobiles. This is in all options.

Note: the 200,000 acres loss is primarily in these areas. "Recommended Wildernesses are Hoodoo (Great Burn), Mallard-Larkins and additions to the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.", It's not hard to see where this is going. Shut down all riding, and illegal riding around the proposed wilderness areas.

I think it's obvious, we want Option B. Now the hard part, doing the research to justify it.

In the map below, the extremely light green colored region is new closures.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/clearwater/...IS/Maps/Winter/090317_winter_AltC_D_24x18.pdf

Wade

clearwater.jpg
 
Last edited:
They will never stop...and neither should we.

Some of this is in your back yard isn't it Scott?

Can you put together some words, about the unique qualities of this area. Some of the last alpine riding areas. Family area, technical. lack of non-motorized. lack of conflict. blah blah blah.
 
Yeah, it's in my backyard. This is my favorite place to ride and I can be there in about 45 mins from my house. Not sure about composing great works of art, but I can try if I have some help.
 
Yeah, it's in my backyard. This is my favorite place to ride and I can be there in about 45 mins from my house. Not sure about composing great works of art, but I can try if I have some help.

Even if it's not art, it'd be nice if people could talk intelligently about the place. What parking lots you access it from, what hills are truly unique, how many non-motorized users you see, and where. It's all about giving people ammo.
 
Can any of you tell me what kind of sledding is in the Clearwater. Will there be anything left, once HooDoo (Great Burn) is closed???????

Actually, what I'm asking is Great Burn the best sledding in Clearwater National Forest, and will it's closure represent a defacto closure of snowmobiling in the Clearwater?
 
Last edited:
I haven't been on a sled in these areas but I have been riding the single track stuff around Weitas Creek for years. We are going to loose alot of riding in this area with the proposed plan C. Looks like they want to shut down all the trails north of Coolwater Mountain also.

I personally don't know of a lot of access to the Weitas areas in the winter. Yea you can ride the road in and stuff but I don't know what kind of mountain riding the area has. I would think the roads would be great. But I don't think you would make it on the motorcycle single track in the winter on a sled.

Here is some reading I found in our local paper. This Alan Deyo is one of the greatest guys. He honestly takes care of the entire Weitas trail system. The FS does nothing.

Cyclist finds flaws in forest travel planJuly 23rd, 2009 (2) comments By Eric Barker of the Tribune Proposal drawing mixed reviews from ATV'ers, environmentalists alike
Alan Deyo, of Orofino, has a favorite motorcycle ride on the Clearwater National Forest.

He starts near Bungalow on the North Fork of the Clearwater River and rides up and across Pot Mountain to Mush Saddle. From there he rides past Cold Springs Peak and Elizabeth Mountain before dropping down to the Black Canyon Road. He rides up Kelly Creek and the Junction Mountain Trail to Windy Ridge and eventually to Cook Mountain and back down Fourth of July Creek. It's 87 miles in all.

But this year could be the last Deyo rides the route. A draft travel management plan released by the Clearwater National Forest last week would close large stretches of trails he likes to travel to motorcycles. The agency is closing the trails to provide security to animals like elk and to protect habitat for fish. But Deyo doesn't believe motorcycles affect elk or trout.

"There has never been a study on the Clearwater forest, as far as I know, that shows elk are killed by motorcycles or the cutthroat trout in Weitas Creek die when they hear a motorcycle go by. I don't know where they get this."

Deyo also said if the trails are closed to motorcycles they may well be effectively closed to everybody. He and some of his riding partners, at the request of the agency, spend time each spring and summer cutting trees out of the trails that have fallen during the previous winter.

"We start as soon as the roads are plowed, cutting windfall out of lower-elevation trails and as the snow melts we work our way up to higher elevations," he said. "I wonder who is going to do the logging out of these trails when the motorcycles are closed out. The Forest Service says they have no money to do it."

The Clearwater's draft travel management plan is receiving mixed reviews, with some all-terrain vehicle riders and environmental groups giving it a thumbs up. But motorcyclists like Deyo say it goes too far and some environmental groups say it doesn't go far enough.

The forest released its draft plan last week that spells out which roads and trails can be used by motor vehicles. The biggest changes are likely to be on trails and long-distance motorcycle riders have the most to lose.

The plan contains three alternatives. Alternative B keeps a liberal amount of trails open, while alternative D closes most trails to ATVs and motorcycles. The third option, alternative C, which is the one preferred by the agency, attempts to strike middle ground.

"Obviously B is the best one for everybody but I don't think C hurts us any. ATVs, it really doesn't affect all too much," said John Erbst of Orofino, who likes to ride ATVs and owns a business that guides ATV riders in the forest.

He said many local ATV groups have a good working relationship with forest officials and have worked with the agency to create new ATV trails at places like Sheep Mountain and Clarke Mountain. "I don't think this new road policy is going to bother that," Erbst said. "I think we will be able to continue to work with them."

The Forest Service nationwide is updating its policy that guides motor vehicle use on national forests. In the past, most forest trails and roads were open unless specifically closed to motorized travel. Under the new policy, each road and trail will be designated open or closed and cross-country travel through the forests will largely be a thing of the past.

Brad Brooks of the Wilderness Society at Boise said the Clearwater's draft plan seems to be on the right track.

"On the whole, I think it strikes a pretty good balance in terms of providing opportunities for everybody. Certainly the plan does well to protect wilderness values and non-motorized recreation values but I do think it provides opportunities for everybody no matter what your interests."

Brooks said his group may take issue with some of the trails the agency has tagged to leave open, but on the whole it is pleased with the plan.

The environmental community is not united in that view. Gary Macfarlane of the Moscow-based Friends of the Clearwater said the plan falls far short of his expectations. He said even alternative D, the one that restricts motorized travel the most, is too liberal.

"Even D, in a couple of places, violates the existing forest plan when meeting elk habitat standards," he said. "We are very disappointed. At least they should have had a baseline that was their existing forest plan and they don't even have that."

Macfarlane also said the plan allows too much snowmobile use in areas important for wolverines and lynx.

In 2007, when the forest began to write the draft plan, it said many of the trails now open to motorcycles could be closed. Forest officials received more than 4,500 comments. Many where from motorcycle riders who wanted long loops left open. Doug Gober, the ranger of the North Fork District, said alternative C was crafted to both protect elk and fish and also leave some long loop opportunities to dirt bikers.

But Deyo said the preferred alternative would leave motorcycle riders with far fewer choices than they have now. They would still be able to ride up Weitas Creek to 12-mile Saddle and down the Windy Ridge Trail to the Cook Mountain Road. But they wouldn't be able to drop into the Fourth of July drainage.

"I'm spoiled," he said. "I've been able to ride a lot of different trails my whole life in the North Fork. I realize times change but not this much at once, I would hope."

A 45-day comment period for the draft plan started last week. But printed maps that show which trails would be open and closed under each alternative have been late to arrive. The comment period may be extended from 45 days starting when the maps become available. The plan is available for viewing at area libraries, Clearwater forest offices and on the Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/clearwater/ under the link "Travel Planning and OHV Rule." The option requires viewers to have a fast Internet connection.

---

Barker may be contacted at ebarker@lmtribune.com or at (208) 848-2273.

Thunder
 
Thanks for the artical. So, by my estimates, their closing everything to snowmoibles, and Macfarlane still aint happy. Geeze, what does a snowmobiler have to do, sacrifice themselves upon the idealistic alter of the almighty wilderness.

Anyone else know about riding sleds in the Clearwater NF?
 
land of the free me a$$......i hate lead lickers. they have too much money to throw around. we keep losing more and more and no matter what we day "they" always win. nothing will stop me from snowmobiling. NOTHING! it is my passion and i say piss on them cut the locks and go play!


ok sorry rant over. im just a little pissed
 
The Great Burn area is already closed. It's listed as The Great Burn Proposed Wilderness Area and is the Montana side of the state line. Once it became "proposed wilderness area" it became closed to motorized vehicles.

Of one of the more popular ways of accessing the Clearwater National Forest area that they now want to shut down is to access it from the Montana side (Lolo National Forest) into the Idaho side (Clearwater National Forest, still open to motorized vehicles at this time) through a tiny corridor that was left open to motorized traffic on the Montana side located on the state line half way between I-90 West of Alberton Montana and Lolo Pass on Hwy 12. Staying on the main road as long as your in Montana and once you make it into Idaho CNF you at this time are able to travel via snowmobile which ever way you choose as long as you stay in Idaho and out of the already closed Montana side. They now want to close the Idaho CNF side which in turn would close hundreds of square miles to recreational users. This area is popular not only to sledding but, hunting, fishing, hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, etc....

Of most interest to us as snowmobiliers it is one of the few places that I know that you can not hardly carry enough fuel for a days ride. A days ride can consist of not counting staying on the road in Montana to and from the Idaho CNF side of the state line into Idaho to a 40 mile plus loop or loops in the best country mother nature has to offer. Your limited to the amount of chutes you can climb or are willing to try, hills you can pull, creek bottoms you can explore, and cornices to jump off from to the amount of fuel you bring along for both yourself and your sled and all of this without seeing a road (on the Idaho side) until your headed back to the truck.

Access to the area isn't the best just to where you are able to unload. It's 18 - 24 miles up a dirt logging road depending on where the snow level is. Turning 4 place trailers around or even 2 place for that matter can be chore. The area has become very popular as of late and that has in turn caused smokey the bear to get restless. Smokey used to stomp out fires but now has a "let it burn policy" and this allows him to focus on stomping out the fun whenever he can see through the smoke in the air.:(
 
The Great Burn area is already closed. It's listed as The Great Burn Proposed Wilderness Area and is the Montana side of the state line. Once it became "proposed wilderness area" it became closed to motorized vehicles.

You had some great comments in there. thanks.

If you go to these maps:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/clearwater/...EIS/Doc/11_DEIS_09jul_vol2_AppendixA_Maps.pdf

You'll see the area, "K2 Great Burn Area". You will notice in Alternative C & D, it is closed, in Alternative A & B, it is open, if what you said where true, how could it be left open in Alt B? It is a "Recommended Wilderness Area" (RWA). Just because it is recommended doesn't mean it has to be closed. I know they've been closing all RWA and WSA in forest region 1 of Montana and Northern Idaho. But, you won't find one single law, rule, or written regulation that requires snowmobiles be banned in a RWA. It's a local decision, by the local forest manager.

Here's some writings from the BDNF travel plan, by SAWS.

Forest Service policy, FSM 1923.03 (2) states any area recommended for Wilderness is not available for any use or activity that may reduce the area’s Wilderness potential. This national policy allows each forest to determine, through the land management planning process, the uses best suited to protect an area’s Wilderness potential.”

SAWS disagrees with the direction chosen by Region 1 as many studies have proven the use of snowmobiles over a layer of snow leaves virtually no evidence of disturbance once the snow has melted. FSM 1923.03 also states the National Forest Service policy applying to RWA’s, as “Activities currently permitted may continue, pending designation, if the activities do not compromise wilderness values of the potential wilderness area”. It is SAWS belief that Snowmobile use does not “compromise wilderness values” or degrade wilderness character of the land. There is no Forest Service policy, directive or existing law that would prevent winter motorized recreation on snowmobiles from continuing to be allowed in RWA’s. If snowmobile use is currently allowed in areas that may be recommended for wilderness in the future, then obviously this use did not diminish the wilderness value of these areas.

ref: http://www.snowmobile-alliance.org/08/misc/SAWS_Comments_BDNF_FEIS.pdf

Here's another document where the Citizens For Balanced Use, say exactly the same thing.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/bitterroot/...comments_stage1_120308/SCOPE-COMMENTS-606.pdf

RWAs must be closed, is a environmentalist lie and trick.
 
Thank you Wade. That map is great.

NOW, how did they determine that much lynx habitat? Those are little tiny dots on that map. How did they put the man hours in to establish all of those little "denning sites"?
 
Thank you Wade. That map is great.

NOW, how did they determine that much lynx habitat? Those are little tiny dots on that map. How did they put the man hours in to establish all of those little "denning sites"?

Oh simple, take a geo sat picture of vegatation cover, take a terrain model, put some variables into a algorythm to look for certain slope/altitude/vegatation, and have the computer spit out the answer. Problem is, the computer models only tell you where go habitat is, it doesn't tell you if animals are actually there.
 
Premium Features



Back
Top